Daily Republican., 1887-04-29
KssuIrs Of . Mistake.


hae Inst decided case, which decision
aay b. In suict comfortably to the let
tss u the Law, but in Its results 1t viz
ennlly robs . worthy poor man Of his
nome. and What makes the case appear
ueall worse 10 that the wrong Was COM
nltsed uuintentionally BY the late
Horace Binney, Esq, ono OF Philadei-
phla's most honest and upright lawyers,
Who would scoru TO do mean act II he
keevit, The LNnoaster New Era has
auvsstie gated tho case fully, and refers
o Il ct some length In order that law
y9s becoming cognizant OF 1t may be
anro careful In the future, and Is law
ywp are liable every where and at all
1amee 70 mako mistakes the lesson may
Aava good effect. 1t seems that some
xears beSore his death Mr.. Blnney, /
AnviuR occasion TO enter satisfaction |
: naaanss . mortgage in the ofiice OF theI
Iooorder Of Deedr, made the record by
mistake opposite another mortgage with
Which he had nothing Whatever to do.
0one time afterwards . colored man
named Morris Brown bought the house
nsninst which satisfaction had been en-
1sred With the savings OF lifetime.
There Was uothing against the house,
= . legal examination proved. 1t WAS
ouuslly unfortunate for the purchaser
eSaat the owners Of the mortgage which
hnd been improperly marked satisfied"
loved to California about the same
dine. and having no immediate use for
eAa money or the interest, allowed both
= remnin uncalled for. Five years
iasar. however, and two years after Nj.
Blnney's death, the owners OF the mort
Rase came forward withia demand oosn
d the principal and interest VI course
Hhs innocent purchaser, brown' was
summed by the demand. he poin1eu
N the book OF records to snow tnat ne
had purchased an unincumoerea prop.
erty. The careful inquiry that ensneo
brought MI. Binney's mistake to light
a wit was sued out against the prop
erev and the Sheriff sold 1t. Under tht
ssssute, . suit for damages against tint
Rscorder OF Deeds was barred by time
and then Q trial In court was instituted
by Brown for the recovery OF his prop
ertv. This also went against him, ant
the only thing left him was to Attemp
10 recover his loss from the Binney es
tate on the ground that the trouble
arose through On unintentional lega
fraud. which could not be barred b!
che statute Of limitation. This suit b
von. INIT 1t vent to the Supreme Cour
nnder an appeal, and that higher TIL
hunal has reversed the decision OF tn
lower court. The court, In Its decision
said: .o
WIhere is neither evidence OF actua
fraud. nor are the circumstances attend
ing the transaction sucL Is to lnvoiv
legal fraud. Horace Binf: ,Jr., togetne
with the Recorder, made mistake iC
which he might hpj' been made zap
had suit been brY Fainst nlm VIM
ehe statntorv pe/ vas charge;
ssIe Nth notb;1 stake. OF III
the face of thk tseli is indubitab
evidence, fort .na.cates precisely wh'
mortgage e1ntended to satisfy, and iro
what ere appears no careful pefs'
much 1--WE been misled by the eIt
naSe BY way Of satisfaction. l.
..;s &C heihg thus apparent, made a
narsnt nv the transaction itself, there
70 room to inter fraud, either actual
constructive, hence the plaintih on
remedy was an action on the case, rem
DIV long since barred by the statute
limitations"
Thus oy the mistake Of a lawys
Morris Brown has lost his hone ~
his property. IL 10 ueciueuiy
case. According to the decision OF I
courts there WAS no dishonesty in I
transaction, but Brown Is as complete
berett of his property as II he had 60
through the hands OF bunco-steere
The natural inquiry Is where sre
heirs OF the Binney estate? They b.
boen looked upon as high minded h
.orable people. 1t would be graci
not for them to step for ward and mi
rood to Brow n the loss he hassustaii
through the mistake Of their decea
relative. But will they do iU
thing is certain, legislation is needeI
meet Just such cases. A law that
permit the taking away OF ms
property as Browns was swept o.
10 not Just. Such thing should
madA imnnssible.